Page 120 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

38 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
1 8. I do not find merit in the contention of the Learned AR for the Rev-
enue that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. SGS
India Ltd.’s case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case
on the ground that in the said case, the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012
was not considered. This Tribunal while interpreting the provisions of new
Rules, that is, Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 followed the ratio laid
down in the said case in reiterating the basic principle of levy of service tax and
observed that it is a consumption-based levy, accordingly, the technical and con-
sultancy service, commences from the stage of undertaking the test on the goods
procured and the service is completed on delivery of the test report/certificate to
the overseas client. I do not find any reason to deviate from the aforesaid obser-
vation of this Tribunal. Further, the judgments referred by the Learned AR for
the Revenue, in my opinion, are not relevant to the facts of the present case, in-
asmuch as in the said judgment the issue raised was levy of service tax on pro-
curement of FDA certificate for the goods to be sold in the respective country. In
the result, following the aforesaid precedent, I do not find merit in the impugned
order to the extent of holding that the services provided by the appellant are not
the export service under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, the
appellants are eligible to cash refund of the accumulated Cenvat credit under
Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, except in relation to credit availed input
services denied by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observing that neces-
sary evidences in relation to Building maintenance charges were not produced to
establish the nexus with the output service and secondly the rent-a-cab service
since placed under the exclusion clause of the definition of input service after
amendment to Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1-4-
2011. Accordingly, the matters are remanded to the adjudicating authority to cal-
culate the admissibility of refund amount except the credit availed on input ser-
vices viz. Building maintenance charges and rent-a-cab service.
9. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court on 28-9-2018)

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 38 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
SAI VIDEO BROADCAST PVT. LTD.

Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST
Final Order No. A/86678/2019-WZB, dated 20-9-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/89397/2018
Demand and penalty - Service Tax deposited by appellant but by mis-
take deposited in the Registration No. of one of the Directors, obtained by him
for his own Proprietary Concern - Admittedly, No Objection Certificate when
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  120